Total posts: 36
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
The simpleton responses proved well enough your intellectual abilities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Nobody takes your diluted elementary opinions seriously just FYI. Your statements are funny as all hell because they're so devoid of logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
I said Iran won't respond? I don't believe I did. I wonder if you have yet changed your opinion on this "God(s) have decided to destroy Israel" joke of a statement. Look's as though the God wants Israel to win, hence why Iran is being trampled, and reduced to mere grandstanding responses so idiots like you can still claim "They did something". I have a hard time containing my laughter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Anyone with an eye and an asshole can see that this was grandstanding, and in no way was Iran interested in actually targeting American troops. And before you call me wrong, Al Jazeera reported this. Iran did it all for show, all to save face. Anyone who thinks this attack by the paper tiger Iran, has lost it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
If I was anymore opposite of upset, I'd need to be resuscitated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
The argument for a one-state democratic solution between Israelis and Palestinians is not only naïve but dangerously detached from reality. It equates a sovereign, self-critical democracy with a terrorist group that explicitly seeks its destruction, ignoring the vast moral and structural asymmetry between the two. Israel is a functioning democracy with voting rights for minorities and a robust legal system, while Hamas is a jihadist organization whose founding charter calls for genocide, and the Palestinian Authority is authoritarian and rife with corruption. Suggesting both could simply merge into a peaceful shared democracy ignores that one side fights to maintain a democratic homeland and the other to dismantle it. Moreover, it dismisses the very purpose of Zionism: the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancestral land, after millennia of persecution culminating in the Holocaust. The notion that Jews should accept minority status in a binational state, trusting in the goodwill of those who have often glorified violence against them, is not compromise, it’s national suicide. Reducing the entire conflict to a disagreement over naming (“Is it worth bombing Israel for decades just to call the country a different word?”) trivializes centuries of history, trauma, and existential fear. This isn’t about semantics; it’s about survival. Peace cannot be built on fantasy. It must be grounded in realism, security, and mutual recognition, none of which exist in a one-state model where one side is asked to dissolve itself for the sake of an illusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
How could I be angry when I'm watching the news, seeing in real time IRGC getting quartered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Oh how terrifying! A nation with no navy, and hardly a military to boot, is threatening to break international law using assets it doesn't have. Shocked, shocked I tell you.
If you think the Saudis are going to sit around and let their main source of revenue dry up, then you're dreaming. What's funnier is, the premise of your arguments is that Iran is in the right, and winning...... Only a foolish lapdog would think Iran is even remotely winning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
So what you're saying is, there isn't much going on upstairs in LucyStarfire's head?
Created:
Posted in:
Anyone who reads this: Do not, by any means, engage with LucyStarFire. Their whole "schtick" is to prevaricate, and avoid answering direct questions. They will just answer with "You're wrong", or "wrong" or some other useless comment. There is nothing behind the keyboard, nothing of substance, just a moral-less troubled, intellectually lacking individual who believes the 8 cats she owns are gods. The sort of stuff you'd see only a lonely, friendless. uneducated dim-wit believe in.
SO DO NOT ENGAGE. Let them wallow in their own stupidity. Better yet, block them. Shut them out of the conversations they try and derail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Did you see Tasnim get bombed? You still think God(s) are bringing Israel to its end?
cue "Wrong again"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Quite! Are you sure to be sure that you're sure about sureness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@trilax133
You should know, the retarded author of this forum is not interested in weighing the morality of Israel, or engaging in good-faith debate. They remind me of this one user called "TheGreatSunGod" who was banned. They were also a polytheist, and also supportive of Iran and Hamas. They also said "Hamas is bad, but Israel is worse" similar to what this user has said in regard to Israel and Iran. They refused to condemn the kidnapping of a Yazidi girl who was held as a sex-slave in Gaza for example. These people have no moral compass. They make up gods to justify the hoops they jump through. They give short responses because they have nothing of value to add. The issue with this site is, it gives anyone who reads one wiki page, the illusion that they're now expert enough to debate. They come here, give a forceful opening, and then they fall apart when they're rebutted, because as it turns out, they know fk all. Not worth responding to them anymore. Just my advice
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Just like they did in Ukraine, look how that went lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
I disagree with your disagreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Yet more ragebait. Id argue God decided to destroy polytheists since hardly any are left. That hypothesis is more proven than this fantasy you have presented against Israel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@21Pilots
The motion of the forum is "Gods have decided to destroy Israel", and keeping that in mind, I am not sure what you're trying to prove. The Gods may have decided to destroy Israel, I certainly don't think so, but the burden of proof is on you, not those who refute you. Until I see some tangible evidence which supports your claim, or rather, OP's claim, I'll consider this an open and shut Win for me and my pro-zionist friends also in this forum.
Also, I didn't say that believing in gods was pathetic, I said that any polytheist who supports Iran is pathetic, a doormat, and enjoys having people walk all over them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
rage bait if I've ever seen it. When your only talking points are referring to cats as gods and responding with yes, no, you're wrong, then it is YOU who is wrong my friend. You wanted debate, now you're running from it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Saying "You are incorrect" but providing no rebuttal, tells me I'm probably not wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Good for you! However, I have no reason to believe you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
I mean, frankly its just a pathetic display, spoken by pathetic door-mats who enjoy people walking all over them, that's how I can sum up your whole demeanor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
So let me get this straight... you ‘like’ a regime that would persecute you, imprison you, or worse, simply for your beliefs... because you receive divine messages telling you which side is ‘more right’? That’s not moral clarity, that’s masochism dressed in mysticism.
You’re free to worship as you choose, even if its a cat, but defending a theocracy that criminalizes your very existence suggests you’re either willfully ignorant or desperately in need of a cause, no matter how self-destructive, and suicidal it is.
Iran's pathetic leadership doesn’t care what gods whisper in your ear. If you lived under their rule, you'd be silenced faster than you could finish your next incantation. Meanwhile, the Israeli state, despite your ill-informed hatred, would protect your right to speak, worship, and mock them, because that's what liberal democracies do.
This isn't a divine battle of good and evil, it's the free world confronting a tyrannical regime that hides its cowardice behind martyrdom and missiles. If you think siding with your oppressors is enlightened, you're not channeling higher wisdom. You're just begging to be used and discarded by people who would burn your books and jail you for heresy.
You’re free to worship as you choose, even if its a cat, but defending a theocracy that criminalizes your very existence suggests you’re either willfully ignorant or desperately in need of a cause, no matter how self-destructive, and suicidal it is.
Iran's pathetic leadership doesn’t care what gods whisper in your ear. If you lived under their rule, you'd be silenced faster than you could finish your next incantation. Meanwhile, the Israeli state, despite your ill-informed hatred, would protect your right to speak, worship, and mock them, because that's what liberal democracies do.
This isn't a divine battle of good and evil, it's the free world confronting a tyrannical regime that hides its cowardice behind martyrdom and missiles. If you think siding with your oppressors is enlightened, you're not channeling higher wisdom. You're just begging to be used and discarded by people who would burn your books and jail you for heresy.
I find so many idiots on here who like willfully endorse people who would gladly publicly execute you, and it is easy for them to nominally support these regimes, because they'll never actually face that threat. That's the whole problem.
Created:
Posted in:
I've genuinely had a good laugh reading this thread. The OP, a self-declared polytheist, has somehow decided to align (however vaguely) with Iran, a theocratic regime that openly persecutes polytheists. That’s not just ironic, it’s borderline suicidal. But then again, rationality has never been a strong suit of the pro-mullah camp.
I know people living in Israel, and if the OP did too, they’d understand that attacks like those witnessed last night, missiles targeting central Israel and killing a 73-year-old pensioner, don’t demoralize Israelis. They galvanize them. Zionists don’t cower, they respond harder, faster, and with more precision.
And what have we seen in response? Iran, as usual, got a solid slapping. Reports confirm that Israel has achieved complete aerial dominance over Tehran itself. Let that sink in, the skies above the heart of the regime are no longer theirs. The OP might cling to delusions, but the rest of the world can see clearly: if this regime miscalculates again, it could very well be their end.
Let’s be clear, Israel faces no existential threat from Iran. But Iran, with its reckless threats against the U.S. and others, is skating on very thin ice. What Israel's precision strike proved beyond doubt is that the Iranian regime is one colossal paper tiger, loud, theatrical, and hollow.
For all their chants and theatrics, Iran's military bluster now ranks alongside Mussolini’s Italy: all bravado, no bite, and destined for historic failure.
I know people living in Israel, and if the OP did too, they’d understand that attacks like those witnessed last night, missiles targeting central Israel and killing a 73-year-old pensioner, don’t demoralize Israelis. They galvanize them. Zionists don’t cower, they respond harder, faster, and with more precision.
And what have we seen in response? Iran, as usual, got a solid slapping. Reports confirm that Israel has achieved complete aerial dominance over Tehran itself. Let that sink in, the skies above the heart of the regime are no longer theirs. The OP might cling to delusions, but the rest of the world can see clearly: if this regime miscalculates again, it could very well be their end.
Let’s be clear, Israel faces no existential threat from Iran. But Iran, with its reckless threats against the U.S. and others, is skating on very thin ice. What Israel's precision strike proved beyond doubt is that the Iranian regime is one colossal paper tiger, loud, theatrical, and hollow.
For all their chants and theatrics, Iran's military bluster now ranks alongside Mussolini’s Italy: all bravado, no bite, and destined for historic failure.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Yeah, so it's Paul's word, against all the previous disciples. Paul's word about the divinity of Christ, Paul's word and interpretation about the abandonment of the covenant between God and the Israelites. Paul who turned what was a sect of Judaism into something devoid of Jewishness, except the disciples who continued their practice of Judaism until their dying day.
The evidence of all this comes from one man who never met Christ in the flesh, yet knew him well enough to contradict earlier teachings, and the original disciples.
Doesn't hold much weight.
Created:
-->
@Shila
As you certainly know, the Holy Trinity as a theory came much later, indeed centuries after Jesus was said to have lived. Additionally, when we consider, Paul, and Christianity being the belief that Jesus is God, we can see that the latter became doctrine, also after Jesus' death, much later, and was likely a principle elevated by Paul.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Paul never clearly identifies Jesus as God in the same sense as YHWH. He distinguishes “God the Father” from “the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 8:6), and verses like Romans 9:5 and Colossians 1:15 use exalted language, but they reflect divine agency — not co-identity with God.
Created:
-->
@Shila
While it’s true that Paul elevated Jesus far beyond a typical messianic role, the claim that Paul outright considered Jesus to be God in the same sense as YHWH is an overstatement — and reflects later Christian theology projected backward. Paul never directly calls Jesus "God" in the way later creeds do. In fact, Paul repeatedly distinguishes between God the Father and Jesus the Lord, showing a hierarchy:
- 1 Corinthians 8:6:
“Yet for us there is one God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ…”— Here, God is the Father, and Jesus is the Lord (not the same being).
- Romans 1:4:
“[Jesus] was declared to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection…”— Paul does not say Jesus was God incarnate; rather, he was appointed Son of God through resurrection.
- 2 Corinthians 5:19:
“God was reconciling the world through Christ.”— Not as Christ — through him — implying a mediator, not co-identity.
Even when Paul calls Jesus "Lord" (kyrios), that term had a range of meanings, from "master" to a divine agent — not necessarily a one-to-one identification with YHWH. Yes, some early Christians may have begun to interpret "Lord" in more exalted ways, but this is part of the gradual evolution of high Christology — not settled doctrine in Paul’s time.
So while Paul gave Jesus a cosmic role and viewed him as essential to God’s redemptive plan, the idea that Paul taught Jesus = YHWH in the later Trinitarian sense is anachronistic. That doctrine fully developed much later, particularly in the 4th century at Nicaea and Constantinople.
Created:
-->
@Shila
While Mark 16:15 does say, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation," this passage must be read in context.
First, most scholars agree that Mark 16:9–20 — including that verse — was a later addition, not part of the earliest manuscripts of Mark.
Second, even taking it at face value, "gospel" (euangelion) at that point referred to the announcement of the Kingdom of God, not yet to a Law-free, Gentile-inclusive religion.
Jesus' earthly ministry consistently prioritized the House of Israel (Matthew 15:24) and affirmed Torah observance (Matthew 5:17-19).
The universal, Law-free Christianity we know today only emerged after Paul systematically abolished Jewish covenant requirements for Gentiles (Galatians 5, Romans 14).
Thus, even if Jesus sent his disciples to the nations, it was still a Jewish message, not a charter to discard the Law and found a new, separate religion — that innovation came later, primarily through Paul's teachings.
Created:
-->
@Shila
While it's true that Christianity would not exist without Jesus as the central figure, it is historically inaccurate to claim that Christianity is simply the direct continuation of Jesus' ministry. Jesus lived, taught, and died as a Torah-observant Jew, preaching exclusively to the lost sheep of Israel, not to Gentiles, and upholding the Law without abolishing it. His early followers, including Peter and James, continued to observe Jewish law even after believing in his resurrection. The actual transformation of Jesus’ Jewish movement into a new, Law-free, Gentile-inclusive faith was the work of Paul. Paul abolished circumcision, kosher laws, Sabbath observance, and other covenantal requirements — changes Jesus himself never taught — and reinterpreted Jesus’ death and resurrection into a universal theology based on faith alone. Thus, while Jesus inspired the faith, Christianity as a distinct, organized religion is fundamentally the product of Paul's radical theological innovations, not a simple unfolding of Jesus' original mission.
Created:
-->
@Shila
What is your point? Halel is not the same as Kosher, it is similar, but not the same. As for Muslims outnumbering Christians, again what is your point?
That Muslims conceive more than Christians?
The number attributed to Muslims is much lower in reality, the same can be said of Christendom. Many Muslims are only muslim because its culturally damaging to leave the faith, and at least in some countries, outright illegal. Islam is also not spreading via conversion nearly as much as it is via birth. More people probably leave Islam than convert those who convert to it.
Created:
-->
@Shila
I disagree for a few reasons.
First of all, Jesus' ministry was Jewish-Covenantal. Jesus lived, worked, and died within the framework of Jewish Law. He repeatedly instructs torah observance, and sent his disciples only to jews ( Matthew 10:5-6)
Paul preached salvation by faith alone, without works of the Law (Romans 3:28).
He taught that circumcision, kosher laws, and Sabbath observance were non-essential or even obsolete for Gentile believers (Galatians 5, Colossians 2)
Jesus rarely spoke about his death as an atoning sacrifice in a systematic theological way.
Paul builds an entire doctrinal structure around the cross as the centerpiece of salvation (1 Corinthians 1:18, Romans 5).
Concepts like "original sin" (Romans 5:12-19) and "justification by faith" are Pauline constructions, not explicit teachings of Jesus.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Jews of the time, including the apostles, were still Torah-observant — but the label's very appearance marks a public perception of a different movement.
"The organization of the Church is actually very close (even the worship services) to the synagogue of the then Jews. Paul did have an impact — but he received his understanding directly from Jesus — according to his testimony."
Paul explicitly rejected Mosaic markers like circumcision and kosher (Galatians 5:2-6, Romans 14).
His "testimony" (e.g., Galatians 1:11-12) is his own claim, not independent verification.
In reality, Paul's theology moves radically away from Jewish covenantal identity towards faith-alone universalism, which Jesus himself never taught explicitly.
"Jesus very often in the Gospels talks about the faith of those who came to him. And how it helped in their healing or miracles. Also, there is a serious debate about the direction of the purpose of the Law in the OT."
Jesus’ discussions of faith do not suggest faith replacing Torah observance.
Gentile examples (Rahab, Ruth) were exceptions, not norms — and even they converted into Israel, accepting Torah obligations.
According to Christian scripture we see that he healed Gentiles rarely and made it clear (Matthew 15:24):
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
When the Temple was destroyed the heart and soul of the Jewish religion stopped. Two new cults sprung up. One called the Christians, and one by the Pharisees.
Wrong framing.
Rabbinic Judaism developed as the legitimate continuation of Second Temple practices post-destruction — preserving covenantal loyalty without the Temple.
"Christianity" was already diverging under Paul decades before 70 AD.
The Temple's destruction accelerated but did not cause the split — Paul’s own letters show the theological divergence happening in the 40s and 50s AD
In doing this, Paulian Christianity starts to deviate from the historical Jesus, who lived, taught, and died as a faithful Jew.Again, very much disputed. Paul followed Christ. He didn't deviate.
Absolutely incorrect:
Paul deviates sharply by abandoning key Jewish practices:
Circumcision (Galatians 5:2)
Kosher (Romans 14)
Sabbath (Colossians 2:16-17)
Jesus never did this. Paul’s Jesus is a cosmic, preexistent Logos (Philippians 2:6-11), whereas the historical Jesus spoke as a prophet within Judaism.
Paul is building a theological system that extends beyond Jesus’ explicit teachings.
Paul and Jesus' teachings are consistent. Jesus of course is the one we worship.
Jesus taught Torah observance until heaven and earth pass away (Matthew 5:18).
Paul taught freedom from the Law (Roman 7:6)
Christians follow Christ Jesus. Paul is important but insignificant next to Christ.
Jesus preached primarily to Jews, about Israel, about repentance, and about the coming Kingdom — not about a Gentile universal church.
Major Christian doctrines — grace alone, faith alone, salvation apart from works of the Law — are Pauline formulations.
While Christ is the object of worship, Paul is the architect of Christian theology.
Without Paul's letters, there would be no:
Soteriology (salvation theology)Ecclesiology (church organization)
Christology (preexistent Christ)
Paul is far from "insignificant" — he defines how Christians interpret Christ.
Interesting suspicion but debunked on many levels.
Acts 15 (Jerusalem Council) records Paul arguing against circumcision for Gentiles.
Paul removed kosher obligations (Romans 14), Sabbath requirements (Colossians 2:16), and deliberately made Christianity accessible to Gentiles by discarding Jewish boundary markers.
It worked: Gentiles flooded in, and the Jewish identity of the movement vanished within a generation.
As for the authors you referenced, I can't say I have read them, what can you recommend, and if you would be so kind as to provide a quick description of your top picks I'd be grateful.
Created:
Christians follow a man, named Saul of Tarsus, who was a jew, but who abandoned the faith, and opened up early Christianity (A sect of Judaism) into a wholly different faith, Christianity.
I suspect, Saul felt the sect would die if more weren't allowed to join. Therefor he got rid of circumcision, sabbath, kosher, and many other things required of jews, to make the faith appear more welcoming to Gentiles, and it worked. Gentiles joined fast, and the faith spread steadily.
Created: